Denying gay marriage is just savage. people just don't wan't it because of religion purposes, but if you like to be gay and marry another guy it's legal. It does nothing to the people who only is around of those 2 guys.

I'm afraid that this won't be much discussion material because this whole thing is pretty open-and-shut. The SCOTUS interpreted that the 14th amendment of the US Constitution allows same-sex marriage and disallows states to deny same-sex couples to marry.

Originally Posted by 14th Amendment

Sec. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This amendment was originally intended to protect against discrimination against blacks, most of which had been recently freed from the conclusion of the US Civil War. The SCOTUS interpretation of this was that banning same-sex marriage was an abridgment of freedoms granted to US citizens. As for Kim Davis' unwillingness to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples and her ability as a US Citizen to do this (or lack, thereof), the entire situation will be explained in full. As much as we don't want to admit it, Kim Davis is a person. That means she has certain rights, one of which is the first amendment, which protects free speech. This is the main pillar of support for Kim Davis' refusal to do her job. What these supporters do not understand however, is that as a public employee, her first amendment rights are restricted when she is on the clock. In the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, it was ruled that government employees' first amendment rights are heavily restricted while on the job, and they can be disciplined for what they say or do. This is the boat that Davis was in when she was refusing marriage licenses. Davis is now back to work, as while she was jailed, her deputy clerks began issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Now that she is back to work, the licenses issued no longer have her signature, but in its place have the words " Issued pursuant to federal court order" and her name was removed from the papers. Kim Davis doubts that these licenses are valid, but Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway believes that they are, as well as Judge David Bunning.

EDIT: Some more information on the first amendment and how Davis and her supporters don't have a leg to stand on when they use it as an argument. While the first amendment does grant religious freedom to citizens, it also prohibits the government from creating or enforcing any law that favors one religion over another. As she is a government employee, her actions while on the job embody the government. When she refuses to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples, she is (as the government) putting her own religious beliefs ahead of everyone else's, which is a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.

All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.

Denying gay marriage is just savage. people just don't wan't it because of religion purposes, but if you like to be gay and marry another guy it's legal. It does nothing to the people who only is around of those 2 guys.

So Denying gay marriage is not good.

We are literally talking about removing one person's rights for someone else's benefit, how can you even say that?

But putting that obvious flaw aside for a second, are you willing to put your logic to the test on a large scale? Should everything that doesn't directly affect others be legal?

<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff

Denying gay marriage because it goes against your religion is like stopping people eating pizza because you are on a diet. It's selfish and rude, nowhere in the bible (or any other holy book i can think of) does it say "Thou shalt stop other people from being gay" it just says that YOU and you alone (the person reading) should not be gay. So follow that command and be at peace with the rest of the world.

Denying gay marriage because it goes against your religion is like stopping people eating pizza because you are on a diet. It's selfish and rude, nowhere in the bible (or any other holy book i can think of) does it say "Thou shalt stop other people from being gay" it just says that YOU and you alone (the person reading) should not be gay. So follow that command and be at peace with the rest of the world.

If a devout Christian issues a marriage license to a same sex couple, the consequences are far beyond that of "interfering with someone's diet." To someone who does not understand or follow that person's religious beliefs, it may seem like a petty thing to do, but to them there are severe moral, social, and religious conflicts and repercussions.

The issue lies within the United State's current business laws. You're allowed to refuse service if it would hinder your ability to provide service or negatively effect your business, but you are not allowed to deny service based on the characteristics of the possible customers.

I personally believe that any business owner should have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. Sure they will lose a sale, and possibly other sales because of their choice, but that should be the only punishment they receive as a result.

I personally believe that any business owner should have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. Sure they will lose a sale, and possibly other sales because of their choice, but that should be the only punishment they receive as a result.

"These damn niggers and fags ain't buying none of my shit. Ill just tell those dirty queers and coons to get the fuck out of my store. AMERICA, THE LAND OF THE FREE!"

Seriously, you want to give legal rights for someone to discriminate others? I understand where you're coming from sure. But just take a step back and put yourself in a black/gay/trans etcetc. persons shoes for a second. Imagine having to be afraid of going to a fucking grocery store, because the owner might randomly just tell you to go fuck yourself because of the color of your skin, sexual identity or any other "random" factor. Laws are not only to punish criminals, they are also to protect people, and ethnic/sexual minorities need most protection in the current world we live in.

I agree to that idea IN THEORY, but since we live in such a messed up world with bigoted and horrible people. Sometimes you have to set theory aside for the greater good of people.

"These damn niggers and fags ain't buying none of my shit. Ill just tell those dirty queers and coons to get the fuck out of my store. AMERICA, THE LAND OF THE FREE!"

Seriously, you want to give legal rights for someone to discriminate others? I understand where you're coming from sure. But just take a step back and put yourself in a black/gay/trans etcetc. persons shoes for a second. Imagine having to be afraid of going to a fucking STORE, because the owner might randomly just tell you to go fuck yourself, just because of the color of your skin, sexual identity or any other "random" factor. Laws are not only to punish criminals, they are also to protect people and ethnic/sexual minorities need most protection in the current world we live in.

I agree to that idea IN THEORY, but since we live in such a messed up world with bigoted and "evil" people. Sometimes you have to set theory aside for the grater good of people.

In a world where white people are assaulted or killed for stepping foot in the ghetto, you have to go with "imagine being a black person going into a store and being told you have to leave!"?

Let's really think out that scenario: a racist person has a shop and won't let in fags and niggers. What's the worse that happens? Well they get told to leave. This is the dystopic nightmare future that awaits people having the right to deny access to their property.

Is this really something that I should care about? Do you prefer the reality where people are sued out of everything they own for refusing to make a cake that supports something against their belief? Is that really the preferable future?

People are not machines, they have the right to deny service at their discretion - you are literally saying that X group of people should have the right to overrule the rights of Y group of people. Take a step back and put yourself in the shoes of the victims of these situations.

<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff

People are not machines, they have the right to deny service at their discretion - you are literally saying that X group of people should have the right to overrule the rights of Y group of people. Take a step back and put yourself in the shoes of the victims of these situations.

"Cant tell a black guy to go to another store because I'm racist.
I'm such a victim"

Discriminating others is not a right........
I think being equally treated in the economy is a right tho.

I don't know how old you are (if you've ever had to work), but in the real world, especially work life. You have some dos and donts that are out of your control. Your work/goverment provides you with certain things (healthcare, money, protection etcetc.) and you agree to act in a way that is befeficial for the society/employer. And one of those things is not being a bigoted cunt. What if the police, doctor or a drugstore clerk could go "Im not protecting/selling meds to that nigger, let him get killed." The issue is basically the same in principle.

I don't know how old you are (if you've ever had to work), but in the real world, especially work life. You have some dos and donts that are out of your control. Your work/goverment provides you with certain things (healthcare, money, protection etcetc.) and you agree to act in a way that is befeficial for the society/employer. And one of those things is not being a bigoted cunt. What if the police, doctor or a drugstore clerk could go "Im not protecting/selling meds to that nigger, let him get killed." The issue is basically the same in principle.

No, it's not.

Tell me how many people have died from not getting their wedding cake or wedding license, and if it's even remotely comparable to the number of people that would die of police or doctors or drugstores refused service then I'll concede your point.

I don't think I have to say any more than that at this point, so I'd like to see your reply to this before we continue.

<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff